Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
halides1 said:
I consider inmates to be potentially unreliable when they are testifying against defendant in a trial because the inmate may be trying to curry favor by helping to convict someone. The inmates in this case cannot do any further legal harm to Guede (they are not in position to convict him; he is already convicted. They could be said to be testifying for Knox and Sollecito, not against Guede.
Click to expand...

I agree that they are testifying for Knox and Sollecito and not Guede, but how is their testimonies going to be of any benefit to the defense? The notorious baby killer has no credibility. If the mafioso is to believed then someone could have murdered Meredith in her bedroom and have left no evidence....if his brother could have pulled that off, then so could Amanda Knox.
 
LondonJohn said:
3) These findings of fact cannot be used in the trials of Knox and Sollecito.
Click to expand...

Don't tell me - tell the pair's lawyers. They're the ones who seem to be organizing their appeals upon the point I earlier delineated.
 
RandyN said:
That’s why having a few jail house snitches who are claiming that RG told them he acted alone will compel the judge to demand that Guede appear. In that case Guede does not have the choice to remain silent.
Click to expand...

Wrong. He totally has the right to remain silent.
 
LondonJohn said:
It still takes a fair blow to cause a nose bleed. And yes, that part of the argument was specifically about whether it was possible to give someone a nosebleed without there being associated marks and/or bruising.

But yes, of course there were other potential ways in which Knox might have been losing blood during the murder. She could have bitten her mouth or tongue of course (I'm guessing the police didn't check her mouth either soon after the murder or even upon her arrest). She could have had a completely incidental nosebleed. She could have had bleeding gums from poor dental hygeine. She could have been menstruating, and got blood on her hands from removing a sanitary pad when changing after having committed the bloody deed. Etc. Etc.

In any case, in my view it's all moot. As I (and many others) have pointed out often before, the way in which the bathroom blood samples were collected means that the probative value of anything found upon them is severely damaged. The long smearing, wiping motions made in collecting evidence from the sink and taps (faucets) means that the "crack" forensics officers were simply "sweeping up" any DNA-containing material present over very wide areas. There were plenty of entirely innocent reasons for traces of Knox's DNA to have been present in the sink she used every day - the fact that these traces were mopped up by the forensics team onto the same swab as Meredith's blood traces is of no evidential value.
Click to expand...

Still waiting on that "almost certainly" citation of nosebleeds = visible bruising. Oh - and that burglar defecation analysis you were promising months ago, if you would. Much obliged.
 
LondonJohn said:
So, show us any evi dence what so ever that Knox was a user of co caine - let alone that she had used co caine on the night of the mur der - and we can talk more about this issue.

No? Nothing? Really? No evi dence from the police's dealer contacts? No? No traces of drugs other than mari juana found in Sollecito's or Knox's res i dences? No? No positive drugs tests for drugs other than mari juana following their a rrest on November 6th? No? No test i mony from friends, housemates or anyone else that they had seen Knox using co caine at any time? No? Nothing? Oh, OK then......
Click to expand...

Hello goalpost

Why is it necessary to provide that.

All I said to correct you was:
1) cocaine can cause nosebleeds
2) cocaine use is one of several non impact causal factors of nosebleeds

Understand your defensiveness about touchy subject of your team's heroine who happened to be described by another who knew her as a 'drugged up tart'.*

But my statement did not even mention her, so I need provide nothing.

Your statement that:"It still takes a fair blow to cause a nose bleed." is unequivocally incorrect.

Live with it if retraction or acknowledgement exceeds your modus operandi

*Was that per chance another convicted murderer who may also become a Defense last gasp
wit ness that said that ?? ??

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3047497.ece
 
Last edited:
Katody Matrass said:
Massei sources everything with references either to testimony trascripts (with page numbers) or to actual exhibits or reports (with symbols and numbers of photos, page numbers). He fails to do so only when he delves into conjecture, like with the "knife carried for protection" tale or the "no glass outside" one.

The cops used to be fairly liberal with releasing photos and other interesting pieces, too.

So if anything existed we would have it (or at least a reference).
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure Barbie Latza Nadeau would have been given a copy of such photographs if they existed (which they don't). She was quite keen to..... cooperate..... closely with Mignini during the investigation and trial.......
 
Fuji said:
Still waiting on that "almost certainly" citation of nosebleeds = visible bruising. Oh - and that burglar defecation analysis you were promising months ago, if you would. Much obliged.
Click to expand...

We gave you, literally, a text book explanation of burglar defecation drawn from burglars explaining why they did and why they didn't flush. You disappeared shortly after. Do you not remember this?
 
The Undiscovered Country stays undiscovered

Anonymous commenter Fiona wrote in response to RoseMontague elsewhere, “You are correct. That is the source according to the article you linked. It follows that Carlo della Vedova is wholly incompetent and should be sacked. Why have the family not sacked this idiot, Rose? In possession of a court order mandating the disclosure of information crucial to the defence, and not receiving it, this moron did nothing but let others bleat on the internet? And admits to this in the article you linked. And continues to lead the defence? Get real.”

This argument is extraordinarily weak. First, it is an attempt to change the subject from the lack of discovery to Mr. Dalla Vedova. And it never even touches upon the question of why the defense was denied the files in 2008, let alone 2009. Second, what was Mr. dalla Vedova supposed to do? If Massei was not inclined to compel the release, Mr. dalla Vedova has no authority to force the prosecution to do so. The only part of this argument that verges on sensible is that the Amanda’s appeal does not highlight this problem. However, Raffaele’s does. This argument is more of an attack on Mr. Dalla Vedova than it is closely reasoned analysis. The problem is probably that Massei never understood why the files are important. As I have argued before, he does not understand the principles of forensic genetics very well, so a lack of appreciation for the files is not wholly surprising. BTW, RoseMontague and I are two different commenters. The only people who believe otherwise are people who think that I would create a sock puppet to make fun of myself. Ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
In any case, in my view it's all moot. As I (and many others) have pointed out often before, the way in which the bathroom blood samples were collected means that the probative value of anything found upon them is severely damaged. The long smearing, wiping motions made in collecting evidence from the sink and taps (faucets) means that the "crack" forensics officers were simply "sweeping up" any DNA-containing material present over very wide areas. There were plenty of entirely innocent reasons for traces of Knox's DNA to have been present in the sink she used every day - the fact that these traces were mopped up by the forensics team onto the same swab as Meredith's blood traces is of no evidential value.
Click to expand...

Finally.
Those nose bleeding red herrings are really boring. Fuji, pilots, some fresher conjecture, pretty please.
 
HumanityBlues said:
We gave you, literally, a text book explanation of burglar defecation drawn from burglars explaining why they did and why they didn't flush. You disappeared shortly after. Do you not remember this?
Click to expand...

Ha! I remember :D

Fuji asking for coprologic details. Does it means he's ready to disappear again after being satisfied?
 
Red Grange

pilot padron said:
Well, yeah......

Even a poor Aggie alumnus, man of the earth, might think that is indeed a 'possibility'.
Particularly since Raffie said at some point (in his several versions):

1) the previous story was rubbish because I was covering for Amanda

2) Amanda did leave my apartment and did not return for several hours

Not precise verbiage perhaps (no quote marks for communications specialist selective monitor), but definitely precisely correct intent
Click to expand...

pilot padron,

Raffaele backed up Amanda in front of Judge Matteini, and he has never backed away from that position since then. What you paraphrased above was from his interrogation of November 5th, IIUC. Red Grange would be impressed by some of your moves. You bob and weave so quickly that one might forget: if even one of the two has a verifiable alibi, the prosecution's reconstruction is damaged beyond repair.
 
Fuji said:
Great one-liner. Crappy substantive reply.
Click to expand...

From Massei, p50 (my bolding):

On this subject it is also useful to recall that at the hearing of April 23, 2009, the witness Gioia Brocci mentioned above declared that she had observed the exterior of the house, paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane, the window of the room then occupied by Filomena Romanelli. She said: "We observed both the wall...underneath the window and all of the vegetation underneath the window, and we noted that there were no traces on the wall, no traces of earth, of grass, nothing, no streaks, nothing at all, and none of the vegetation underneath the window appeared to have been trampled; nothing" (p. 142 declarations of Gioia Brocci).
Click to expand...


Note the explicit reference by Massei to the "declaration" of Brocci. No mention whatsoever of photographs introduced into evidence to support this "declaration".

Incidentally, IIRC the same Gioia Brocci - a police forensics photographer, don't forget - was the one who conducted the infamous "smearing" collection of the samples from the sink and surrounding areas in the small bathroom. Why was a photographer collecting evidence anyway? aren't photographers meant to limit their participation to making the photographic record of the crime scene and the collection of evidence by other SOCOs? Is this a further example of the type of lax job swapping that Stefanoni herself pioneered?
 
how to mix DNA

LondonJohn said:
In any case, in my view it's all moot. As I (and many others) have pointed out often before, the way in which the bathroom blood samples were collected means that the probative value of anything found upon them is severely damaged. The long smearing, wiping motions made in collecting evidence from the sink and taps (faucets) means that the "crack" forensics officers were simply "sweeping up" any DNA-containing material present over very wide areas. There were plenty of entirely innocent reasons for traces of Knox's DNA to have been present in the sink she used every day - the fact that these traces were mopped up by the forensics team onto the same swab as Meredith's blood traces is of no evidential value.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Mixed DNA is not that uncommon, even when there is no reason to question the collection technique. The way some of the samples were collected, it is almost as if they were trying to get mixed samples. Charlie Wilkes also pointed out that Dr. Stefanoni swabbing technique could have pulled material from her gloves. And Dr. Stefanoni's views on how often gloves should be changed are not shared by the writers of forensic guidelines and textbooks, as has been documented on this thread several times.
 
Katody Matrass said:
Finally.
Those nose bleeding red herrings are really boring. Fuji, pilots, some fresher conjecture, pretty please.
Click to expand...

Pray forgive if I choose to resurrect the home team terminology and characterize your reply as a 'swift retreat' (from unequivocally incorrect statements and lost arguments by your 'team'
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
Wrong. He totally has the right to remain silent.
Click to expand...


He can be compelled to appear before Hellmann's court according to the Italian Code of Criminal Procedures, but he can indeed exercise his right to remain silent when on the stand. But if that were to happen, I suspect that the defence might be allowed by the court to argue that Guede's silence carried weight of its own with regard to the testimony of Alessi and the other inmates who allegedly heard this discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom